Case Study 1

Overview — Based on: Commonwealth v. Pickens, 2017 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2045 (2017). Memorandum by Stabile, J.:

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appealed a court order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, denying the Commonwealth’s motion to refile charges against Defendant-Appellee, Eric C. Pickens. Following general review, the court, upon hearing the appeal by the prosecution, vacated the lower court order denying a refiling of the claim because it found that the prosecution had presented a prima facie case in the first hearing involving a firearm charge and other charges. The court remanded the matter for further proceedings that will likely head to a trial on the merits.

Defendant Pickens had been previously arrested and charged with firearms violations, terroristic threats, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person (REAP) following an incident between Pickens and his neighbor, the complainant, Luis Ayala. At a preliminary hearing to determine whether the case should go to trial, the alleged victim, Ayala, testified that he was changing a tire on his van when Pickens approached him. Ayala stated that the defendant pointed a gun at him, and said he would “smoke” Ayala if Ayala ever touched his car again. Ayala called the police to report the incident as soon as Pickens walked away from the scene.

During a preliminary hearing, the defendant’s attorney advised the judge the defendant was a security guard who possessed a permit to carry a firearm to and from work under a Pennsylvania statute. The judge noted that such a permit card would generally only allow the cardholder to carry his firearm to and from work and nowhere else. A detective also testified that a search warrant at the defendant’s residence resulted in the seizure of a firearm that was not loaded and that no ammunition was found in the residence. The hearing judge dismissed all charges against the defendant without offering any legal reasoning.

The Commonwealth prosecutor filed a motion that, if granted, would allow the refiling of the charges if the motion was well taken. At a hearing before a different judge, the prosecutor explained that the issue in the case was whether the defendant was permitted to carry a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia at the time he pointed the firearm and made threats toward his neighbor. Under the Act 235 permitting process, the defendant was only permitted to carry a firearm to and from work and at work and not allowed to carry at other times or places. The reviewing judge denied the Commonwealth’s request to refile the charges because she felt that the earlier dismissal was based on judicial determinations of lack of credibility of the complaining witness.

The Commonwealth appealed the refusal to allow the refiling of the charges on the ground that the lower court erred in refusing to allow the refiling of the charges on the basis of insufficient evidence that a prima facie case had been presented. The Commonwealth contended that the testimony at the preliminary hearing that the defendant had pointed a firearm at the victim was sufficient to establish a prima facie case on all of the charges. According to the argument of the Commonwealth, if it had proven a prima facie case at a preliminary hearing, credibility of the witnesses was not an issue concerning whether to take the case to trial or not.

The issue on appeal concerned whether the lower court committed error in denying the Commonwealth the ability to refile the charges against the defendant on the basis of insufficient evidence proving a prima facie case, where the prosecution had established at the preliminary hearing that the defendant pointed a gun at the victim and threatened to shoot him.

The reviewing court noted that: at the preliminary hearing stage of a criminal prosecution, the prosecution need not prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather, must merely put forth sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that points toward guilt. A prima facie case exists when the prosecution produces evidence of each of the material elements of the crime charged and establishes probable cause to warrant the belief that the accused defendant committed the charged offenses. The evidence at a preliminary hearing need only be such that, if presented at trial and accepted as true, the judge would be warranted in permitting the case to be decided by the jury.

In this case, the defendant had admitted through the words of his attorney that he had only an Act 235 card, which did not permit him to carry a weapon other than to and from work. Defendant Pickens also contended the evidence was insufficient to support a prima facie case for terroristic threats under the relevant state statute, which basically holds that a “person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another.” The defendant also contended evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was insufficient prima facie evidence that his conduct would place a person in perceived danger of death or serious injury. The defendant argued that his gun was unloaded time of the altercation.

Case Study 2

Overview — Based on: Holmes v. State, 923 N.E.2d 479, 2010 Ind. App. LEXIS 504 (2010).

After being granted probation, Defendant Holmes was charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and public intoxication. He had been incarcerated for possession of cocaine and two counts of theft. After a hearing, his probation was revoked and the trial court ordered that he serve the remainder of his sentence, 98 weeks, on home detention. He was not allowed to consume alcohol. About a month later, he submitted a urine sample that tested positive for alcohol.

The trial court held a hearing to determine the facts and whether Holmes had violated provisions of his probation. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the trial court determined that the evidence supported a finding that Holmes had violated the terms of his home detention. The trial court revoked Holmes’s placement on home detention and ordered that he serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence in the custody of the Department of Corrections.

Holmes appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he had consumed alcohol in violation of the conditions of his home detention. As the basis for his appeal, Holmes contended that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the urinalysis report into evidence during the home detention revocation hearing. Holmes argued that the urinalysis report was unreliable hearsay because neither the toxicologist nor the certifying scientist testified during the home detention revocation hearing, resulting in the admission of hearsay evidence.

Based on prior cases, trial courts generally followed the guidelines ordered by the Indiana Supreme Court. The state supreme court previously adopted the substantial trustworthiness test as the means for determining whether hearsay evidence should be admitted during a hearing relating to the revocation of an individual’s probation or community corrections placement. The substantial trustworthiness test requires that the trial court evaluate the reliability of the hearsay evidence. A corrections field officer testified concerning the details of how the urine sample was collected, stored, and transmitted to the testing laboratory and how he followed department procedures. With respect to the urinalysis report of tests of Holmes’s urine, a laboratory toxicologist affirmed under penalty of perjury that Holmes’s urine sample “was received under sealed and controlled conditions and was properly Identified, Accessioned, and Tested in accordance to the Standard Operating Procedures of [the laboratory].”

Defendant Holmes contended on appeal that the evidence of intoxication was not properly presented to the court and that the evidence was not sufficient to revoke his conditional release.